JUDGMENT : C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring respondents’ eligibility for refund of the fees paid to the 3rd appellant college which is in the Co-operative Sector. Admittedly after joining the 3rd appellant’s college, 1st respondent took T. C. and joined the Private Engineering College by name Toc-H Engineering College, Ernakulam. Before the learned Single Judge, 1st respondent claimed refund of fee paid under the NRI quota to the 3rd appellant for the reason that under the prospectus, fees paid is refundable if admission is secured in a Government College or Government Aided College. Respondents claimed that she got admission in Kochi University of Science and Technology and that being a statutory educational body, learned Single Judge declared the benefit to the 1st respondent on the ground that the Kochi University falls within the ambit of Government College. It is also recorded in the judgment that before the class commenced, the 1st respondent left the college. 2. Before us, the appellants’ contention is that respondent misled the Single Judge by contending that she joined for studies in Kochi University of Science and Technology; whereas she joined Toc-H Engineering College which is a private institution. 3. According to the appellants, leaving the college after payment of fees to join in a private college does not entitle the 1st respondent for refund. The 1st respondent obtained admission based on the conditions in the prospectus is not contested before the learned Single Judge. 4. The contention raised by the 1st respondent’s counsel before us is that the 1st respondent had secured admission in Kochi University but she did not join and so much so the condition in the prospectus for refund is satisfied. However, we are unable to accept this contention because what is required is the student joining a Government College or Government Aided College for pursuing her studies and not joining for claiming refund in terms of notification. Respondents’ further case is that several of the students are granted refund even though such students joined only in private colleges. Further, it is also a matter to be seen whether at least part refund is entitled to the 1st respondent. 5. Respondents’ further case is that several of the students are granted refund even though such students joined only in private colleges. Further, it is also a matter to be seen whether at least part refund is entitled to the 1st respondent. 5. We feel the judgment is rendered under a thoroughly mistaken statement of facts made by the respondent and so much so judgment rendered based on wrong assumptions of act is not tenable. Since several issues are raised by the respondents in the writ petition, we feel that 1st respondent should establish the case before the learned Single Judge, if necessary by bringing correct facts in the place of wrong facts submitted and additional contention, if any, required to be taken. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restore the writ petition for consideration by the learned Single Judge afresh based on correct facts. The writ appeal is allowed as above.